[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition, debate reopened



On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 07:41:26AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:21:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Possibly I'm just misunderstanding what you're suggesting should be done
> > though. Can you give a sequence of commands that does whatever you're
> > suggesting, and still has those three packages survive unscathed?
> 
> That's simple enough. This all only works if there is no /usr/share/doc
> and you can move /usr/doc in an atomic operation.

Your assessment is flawed---it assumes facts like /usr/share and /usr/doc
being on the same partition.  You cannot have an atomic move in this case.


> IMHO, packages that
> started using /usr/share/doc were premature in that usage and shouldn't
> get special accomodation. For now, packages should be built to install
> into /usr/doc without concern for whether that's a symlink or not. We
> can worry about whether we want to deal with the symlink at a later
> date.

Ignore the problem and it'll go away?  feh.


We put off the archive restructure discussion until hamm was released, but
it never got addressed until we were gearing up for slink release and was
put off again.  Now it's come up still again in time for it to be put
aside until potato's release.

I figure by the end of time (1Q2038) we'll have figured out what to do
with /usr/doc and have the archive restructure happen.  At this rate it'll
take that long for the decision to decide whether or not we should decide
to do these things or not will be made.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>             Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC  44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77  8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Kethryvis> Gruuk: UFies are above and beyond the human race :)

Attachment: pgpcpusQZ_IkQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: